Durability Index

[Hold Your Peace]

All of this can be helpful but statistics are never going to give you a full picture.

If you've got a cheap claimer who is say stuck at the $7,500 claiming NW2L for a while then EVERY time that race comes up at anything close to your horses preferred distance then you run (unless there is something really wrong with your horse or unless they're carding that condition every couple of days). That condition (at your preferred distance) is liable to come up every two weeks so you run every two weeks no ifs ands or buts. At that level you need every single dollar you can get out of them even if it's 3rd or 4th place money so even if they don't run that well at least they can run often. And hopefully at some point everything will go there way and they'll get another win and then you start running every time the NW3L condition comes up.

If you've got a stakes horse you're going to wait until all the stars align perfectly. The exact race, the exact distance, the horse trained to peak fitness, etc; and consquently a stakes horse is liable to only run 8 or 10 times a year even if they're perfectly sound.

Or with a horse just starting out- If I had a very well bred filly I paid $500,000 for but the training center where I send all of my young horses told me they were about as positive as can be that the filly just isn't that talented (even though she's perfectly sound) and was extremely unlikely to win at the maiden allowance level then I wouldn't even bother sending her to the track to race. Or if I sent one like this to the racetrack and they tried short, long, turf, dirt and showed little then I'm retiring them after only three or four starts. They're liable to be worth $100,000 as an unraced or unplaced broodmare prospect so I'm not going to run them for maiden $25,000 even though that might be a level where they could win.

Now if I had a cheap horse who can't win at the MdSpWt level then no problem. Run them for Maiden $25,000. No go there then run them for Maiden $16,000. If that don't work then Maiden $12,500. If that don't work then Maiden $7,500. The horse is going to rack up starts in a hurry just trying to find their level and then once we find the horse's level they're just going to keep on running.

Anybody thinking $7,500 claimers making twice as many starts as stakes horses means a thing with regard to soundness would be wrong. For that reason the starts per foal average of backyard Bob's stallion (who will likely spend his entire career producing nothing but low level claimers) are going to blow away the starts per foal average of Mr. Prospector, Storm Cat, Danzig, etc;

In addition to looking at stats, talk to trainers and training centers that see a lot of different horses from a lot of different bloodlines. They'll be able to tell you a lot of interesting things about different lines which you'll never read anywhere. The reason you'll never read it anywhere is because it's bad business to publicly bad mouth a stallion owned or stood by important people in this business (it's bad business for trainers and it's also bad business for publications which take advertising from stud farms). Plus it's a competition and if a competing trainer hasn't figured out not to touch the offspring of stallion so and so, and you have, then that gives you an advantage.

[hpkingjr]

I found it interesting to compare the ATR's Stallion watch list with their new durability lists. In one they praise the stallion as best values and in the other poor off the scale.

http://www.thoroughbredreview.com/StallionWatch.htm

For example look at Indian Charlie, In Excess, Theatrical etc.

Doesn't seem very consistent to me.

[KamiBrooks]

Kami: So two sires with equal starts per starter and % starters from foals should be evaluated exactly the same by mare owners regardless of other factors? Even in cases where the average earnings per start on one sire is 4-5 times higher, you'd still give the same rating?

Anyone else have any ideas on the California variable?

IF you're talking about "durability" (and this is called the ATR Durability Index), yes. To me durability is not about the amount earned, its about the ability to train and race more than 1-2 years.

IF your talking about selecting a sire in general, no. There are many factors that go into that, including the ability to pass on talent that has potential to earn money.

[KamiBrooks]

All of this can be helpful but statistics are never going to give you a full picture.

This is SO Absolutely true. That is why if you're going to create something and call it an index or a rating system, it should at least be clear what is being rated. Just like nicking... all that tells you is the sire lines of horses who happened to do well in the past, it is hardly something that you want to use as a sole source of sire selection... but at least it gives a starting point to do further research. Durability (when judged by simple average starts/starter) is a simple, clean statistic. The proposed index is not and actually weights earnings very heavily into what they're calling durable. It also heavily rates % of starters from foals, which to me is not durability, but more of a confirmational soundness/temperment issue.

I absolutely agree with what you wrote from a financial/business perspective. If it were called a 'best buy index' then I'd have no problem with it at all.

If you've got a stakes horse you're going to wait until all the stars align perfectly....

I don't see giving their sire's rating a false boost if they do not in fact prove that they're durable horses. Durability is a simple concept. If the horse didn't race, regardless of if its because of connections or soundness, the horse didn't race. Is it fair to falsely boost all those horses that couldn't stay sound and were patched together to keep them running the few starts per year because they ran in a stakes race? If you're considering does the stud produce horses who earn money, there's AEI/CI and average earnings/starter.

Or with a horse just starting out- If I had a very well bred filly I paid $500,000 for but ... the filly just isn't that talented

I don't think this one would actually boost the index rating.

In addition to looking at stats, talk to trainers and training centers that see a lot of different horses from a lot of different bloodlines. They'll be able to tell you a lot of interesting things about different lines which you'll never read anywhere. ..

So isn't this all the more reason to NOT inflate durability ratings with earnings? Or to make it clear that their concept of durability is not the average use of the term?

Also, just because a horse isn't durrable, doesn't mean that he's not desirable. There is no way that I'd call Big Brown a durrable horse, but I certainly wouldn't say that he's not talented.

Under this system, Boundary's durability rating would be boosted by BB's $3mil earnings over 7 starts but actually drug down by the next highest earner of $600k+ over 42 starts. Does that really make sense? Does BB truely add to the argument that Boundary produces durable horses?

What if all of his get were like BB and managed to pull off 4-6 bigger stakes races on fiberglass patched hooves instead of the second horse down? Should Boundary really be rated as producing more DURABLE horses based on that? Would I call them talented? Yes. Would I call them durable, NO.

[soundfast]

The Blood Horse did a study called Losing The Iron Horse? and found that the offspring of the poorest stallions with no stakes winners had the fewest starts. Those with the graded stakes winners had the most starts. This was a free download last month and those who really want the facts instead of the hype should download it or get the print version for $149. part of which benefits charity. The offspring of the most unsound or slow horses are the ones with the fewest starts. In 70-79 Mr. Prospectors averaged 21.5 starts per runner. Two equally fast horses Congaree -3 and Ghostzapper -3 ragozins.Ghostzapper retired with a fracture after 11 starts. Congaree who was equally fast had 25 starts. The sound horse Congaree has a stud fee of $15K and the unsound Ghostzapper has a stud fee of $150K. This probably makes sense to some of you people but not to me. My stallion is a stakes winner and he had 53 starts with 16 per year at 3 and 4. Say Florida Sandy is a Graded stakes winner with 98 starts and a ragozin of 0 and he won the Paumonok H. at the age of 9 at Aqueduct. He had 21 starts at the age of 4. Making excuses for unsoundness does not help the horses or the people that ride them. It makes sense to breed for soundness.

[bdw0617]

The Blood Horse did a study called Losing The Iron Horse? and found that the offspring of the poorest stallions with no stakes winners had the fewest starts. Those with the graded stakes winners had the most starts. This was a free download last month and those who really want the facts instead of the hype should download it or get the print version for $149. part of which benefits charity. The offspring of the most unsound or slow horses are the ones with the fewest starts. In 70-79 Mr. Prospectors averaged 21.5 starts per runner. Two equally fast horses Congaree -3 and Ghostzapper -3 ragozins.Ghostzapper retired with a fracture after 11 starts. Congaree who was equally fast had 25 starts. The sound horse Congaree has a stud fee of $15K and the unsound Ghostzapper has a stud fee of $150K. This probably makes sense to some of you people but not to me. My stallion is a stakes winner and he had 53 starts with 16 per year at 3 and 4. Say Florida Sandy is a Graded stakes winner with 98 starts and a ragozin of 0 and he won the Paumonok H. at the age of 9 at Aqueduct. He had 21 starts at the age of 4. Making excuses for unsoundness does not help the horses or the people that ride them. It makes sense to breed for soundness.

the biggest mistake in that entire post is assuming ghostzapper and congaree were equally fast.

ghostzapper would clean congaree's clock

[KamiBrooks]

The Blood Horse did a study called Losing The Iron Horse?

Have signed up to download the reports, but watched the video. I totally agree with everyone except the last person to talk who said decline was possibly due to year round racing. Best comments was the first guy who suspected US Drug policies and noted that his horses in Europe are very durrable, but not under American style racing (meaning drug use).

Here's the link if anyone wants to see it: http://www.bloodhorse.com/Videos/Sectio ... c1ddff.htm

if it doesn't work, I googled Blood horse "Loosing the Iron Horse" to find it.

[LB]

The Blood Horse did a study called Losing The Iron Horse? and found that the offspring of the poorest stallions with no stakes winners had the fewest starts. Those with the graded stakes winners had the most starts. This was a free download last month and those who really want the facts instead of the hype should download it or get the print version for $149. part of which benefits charity. The offspring of the most unsound or slow horses are the ones with the fewest starts. In 70-79 Mr. Prospectors averaged 21.5 starts per runner. Two equally fast horses Congaree -3 and Ghostzapper -3 ragozins.Ghostzapper retired with a fracture after 11 starts. Congaree who was equally fast had 25 starts. The sound horse Congaree has a stud fee of $15K and the unsound Ghostzapper has a stud fee of $150K. This probably makes sense to some of you people but not to me. My stallion is a stakes winner and he had 53 starts with 16 per year at 3 and 4. Say Florida Sandy is a Graded stakes winner with 98 starts and a ragozin of 0 and he won the Paumonok H. at the age of 9 at Aqueduct. He had 21 starts at the age of 4. Making excuses for unsoundness does not help the horses or the people that ride them. It makes sense to breed for soundness.

the biggest mistake in that entire post is assuming ghostzapper and congaree were equally fast.

ghostzapper would clean congaree's clock

The second biggest mistake would be in assuming that Ghostzapper didn't have more starts because of soundness issues. You've got to look at who trained him, too. The year he was HOY, GZ only competed in races his trainer was sure he could win.

[bdw0617]

I agree and disagree. I firmly believe ghostzapper is the best dirt horse in america since the bid, on a talent basis. Frankel would not run him unless he knew he was going to get his A game out of him. EVERY race he lost it was because he was injuried in the race, note that after every lost there is a 5-6 month layoff.

I think he only ran 5 times the year he won HOY. they were all spectcular races, but still.

[soundfast]

You have no evidence that Ghostzapper was faster than Congaree. The ragozin speed figures say you are wrong. Ghostzapper retired because of a fracture. He did not stay sound and that is why he had less starts. You people can never back up your stories with evidence just opinions. Losing The Iron Horse was a very long detailed analysis and named the stallions and gave details about the number of starts per foal,per runner,stakes winners,graded stakes winners,earnings,etc. It was broken down into ten year periods except for 2000-2003. Horses are becoming more unsound because more unsound horses are going to stud. Instead of admiring the unsound I admire the sound. I love horses and hate them dying every day because of people who lie in order to satisfy their own greed. The best horses are the sound horses and they are just as fast or faster than the unsound horses. Unbridled's Song retired with fractured front leg after 11 starts just like Ghostzapper sired Half Ours who retired with a fracture after 7 starts and Buddha who managed 4 starts as well as Eight Belles who died among others.His best rag was 2.5 and none of his offspring seem to have done better than 1.75 which is slower than Say Florida Sandy with 0. None of his sons at stud has won even $1 million yet he has a stud fee of $150K just like Ghostzapper. Ghostzapper has not had even one runner yet let alone a SW. Jump Start retired with a fracture after 5 starts and his best rag was 8+.

[bdw0617]

we aren't going to start this. Ghostzapper was a faster horse, more consistently as well, than Congagree. I'm sure baffert would even admit to that.

Conagree owns the record for the fastest first quarter mile in the derby. Ghostzapper holds the record for the fastest Breeders Cup Classic Final time at 1:59 flat Conagree is fast, but ghostzapper could carry it father than conagree and that's the bottom line, because BDW says so!!

Conagree's fastest mile was · 1:33.11

lol, taken directly off of adena springs website

CONGAREE, by Arazi. (2008 Fee: $15,000 payable when foal stands and nurses)

· One of the great milers of modern times

· Five-time Grade I winner of $3.2 million

· Horse of the Year runner-up; Eclipse Finalist as champion older male & champion sprinter

· G1 wins at 3, 4, & 5, from 7f to 1 1/4 miles

· Fastest mile of 2002 on dirt (1:33.11)

· Only horse to win the Grade I Cigar Mile back-to-back

· Ran 2nd fastest mile in Kentucky Derby history
· First 2yos include $410,000 OBS March colt, $350,000 FT

ghostzapper

GHOSTZAPPER, by Awesome Again. (2008 Fee: $150,000 payable October 1 of year bred)

· The fastest horse since the advent of speed figures

· Fastest ever winner of the Breeders' Cup Classic-G1 · Horse of the Year and champion older male

· Highest Beyer Figure ever awarded around two turns

· Lowest Rag # in history; Lowest Thoro-Graph # in history

· GI winner at 6 1/2f (1:14 3/5), one mile (1:33 1/5), 1 1/8 miles (1:46 1/5), 1 1/4 miles (1:59)

· Lifetime record: 11-9-0-1, earnings $3,446,120

· Leading son of his sire, Awesome Again, the leading son of his sire, Deputy Minister
· 2007: First weanlings averaged $755,000 - highest average in history for freshman sire
· 2007: In-foal mares averaging $429,412

no facts huh?

if adena, who owns both of them, thinks ghostzapper is better, I think I would agree with them. you could have done a hell of alot better than conagree.


also, if they both had the same score, why isn't this stat advertised for conagree? someone is fudging facts.

[Roger]

bdw, I think the question is who would you rather take a chance on. $150,000 for a very fast horse who broke a leg or a sound $15,000 one who was just about as fast. Is the pedigree and HOY worth that much more?
I would like to see a study of what breakdowns caused who to retire. For example, who bowed, who broke bones, who had sesamoid issues, suspensory issues.

[bdw0617]

bdw, I think the question is who would you rather take a chance on. $150,000 for a very fast horse who broke a leg or a sound $15,000 one who was just about as fast. Is the pedigree and HOY worth that much more?
I would like to see a study of what breakdowns caused who to retire. For example, who bowed, who broke bones, who had sesamoid issues, suspensory issues.

I actually agree with you on that.

but that is not what was said. she didn't say that he "almost was as fast" or that is more "vaule" at 15,000. I agree with that. 15,000 for a 5 time grade 1 winner is a darn good deal.

what she said was that they were on the same level and tried to put stats up to make it look like they were exactly the same horse. um.. no. there aren't.

I love ghostzapper the horse but 150k for a sire whose closest successful relative is Lil E Tee, I'll pass until he's proven. that's an alfwul lot of money. Street Cry who is the hottest thing going now is just 100k.

[Roger]

I was told by an old cajun that speed don't count, its who you beat thats important. We had an old horse that would only turn a 1:14 here in Texas, but when we ran him at Will Rogers in Oklahoma, he ran a 1:10 something blowing his knee in the process. The track's surface and competion made the difference. To me a little faster speed number is l almost like the same speed numbers. When Congaree did his 1:33 mile, do you think that Ghostzapper would have beat him that day?

[soundfast]

In case you did not know Congaree's 1:33.11 is faster than 1:33.29 which was Ghostzapper's time. Congaree already has stakes winners. Ghostzapper could turn out to be an overpriced overhyped dud. A sound horse is more likely to produce sound horses. Awesome Again who is Ghostzapper's sire is also a horse they stand. His get only average about 13 starts and he only had 12 starts himself. His stud fee is also $150K which is well above his average earnings per runner. Congarees pedigree is not in fashion also know as commercial by those who tout people on stallions. Commercial usually means fools pay big $ for unsound offspring of unsound stallions. Value investors understand profit and commercial is over hyped over priced lose money unless you get lucky. Congaree is a good value. Awesome Again and Ghostzapper are not. It is not just a matter of money either because horses die and jockeys are injured or worse because of unsoundness and many of these people buying these horses actually believe they are getting a good horse. Horses suffer and people suffer because of "commercial" breeding practices and some get out of Thoroughbreds because they lose money and heart. Jess Jackson sued over some of his losses. Some are beginning to understand what commercial means when it comes to Thoroughbreds.